Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wijv20

Download by: [Mr Eric Gido] Date: 14 September 2017, At: 05:01

International Journal of Vegetable Science

ISSN: 1931-5260 (Print) 1931-5279 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wijv20

Consumer Acceptance of Leafy African IndigenousVegetables: Comparison Between Rural and UrbanDwellers

Eric Obedy Gido, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya, George Owuor & WolfgangBokelmann

To cite this article: Eric Obedy Gido, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya, George Owuor & Wolfgang Bokelmann(2017) Consumer Acceptance of Leafy African Indigenous Vegetables: Comparison BetweenRural and Urban Dwellers, International Journal of Vegetable Science, 23:4, 346-361, DOI:10.1080/19315260.2017.1293758

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2017.1293758

Accepted author version posted online: 14Feb 2017.Published online: 14 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 235

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Consumer Acceptance of Leafy African IndigenousVegetables: Comparison Between Rural and UrbanDwellersEric Obedy Gidoa,b, Oscar Ingasia Ayuyab, George Owuor b,and Wolfgang Bokelmanna

aDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin,Germany; bDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Egerton University,Egerton, Kenya

ABSTRACTUnderstanding consumer acceptance of leafy African indigenousvegetables (AIVs) is important in enhancing their consumptionlevels to increase micronutrient intake. Cooked leaves from AIVsare traditionally consumed together with starchy staple food.Acceptance of leafy AIVs for consumption was evaluated using amultivariate probit model. Due to potential heterogeneity inconsumer characteristics, a comparison was made betweenrural and urban dwellers. A stratified multistage sampling tech-nique was used to select a sample of 168 rural and 282 urbanrespondents and data were collected using a pretested semi-structured questionnaire. African night shade (Solanum scabrumMill.) had the highest acceptance level, followed by Cowpea(Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) and Slender leaf (Crotalaria brevi-dens Benth) was least accepted by rural and urban dwellers.With the exception of Jute mallow (Corchorus olitorius L.), allvegetables were better accepted by rural than urban dwellers,with differences between cowpea and Amaranth (Amaranthuscruentus L.). Age and occupation influenced acceptance of leafyAIVs by rural dwellers, but gender, household size, market infor-mation, and retail price explained their acceptance by urbandwellers. For rural and urban dwellers, income and market dis-tance decreased and increased acceptance of leafy AIVs, respec-tively. Improved knowledge of AIVs among urban male andyounger rural household decision makers could increase accep-tance of leafy AIVs.

KEYWORDSHousehold consumption;leafy vegetables;micronutrients; multivariateprobit model; preference

African indigenous vegetables (AIVs) are those whose natural habitat origi-nated in Africa and have been integrated into cultures through natural orselective processes (Maundu et al., 2009; Schippers, 2002). Leaves, fruit, roots,stem, bark, and seed from AIVs have been utilized for nutrition and medic-inal purposes in Africa (Habwe et al., 2009; Kamga et al., 2013). Cookedleaves from AIVs are traditionally consumed together with starchy staplefood (Abukutsa, 2007; Vainio-Mattila, 2000). Their consumption is likely

CONTACT Eric Obedy Gido gidoeric@gmail.com Department of Agricultural Economics and SocialSciences, Humboldt University of Berlin, Invalidenstrasse 42, 10115 Berlin, Germany.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE2017, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 346–361http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2017.1293758

© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

based on culture, with some plant types cultivated and consumed only incertain ethnic groups (Amaza, 2009; Anonymous, 2006; Croft et al., 2014;Kimiywe et al., 2007). Accessibility, seasonal availability, and variation inAIV preference create diversified consumption patterns in AIV demandamong groups from different geographical regions (Abukutsa, 2011; Faberet al., 2010; Gotor and Irungu, 2010). However, utilization of leafy AIVscomes after years of neglect (Abukutsa, 2011; Abukutsa and Onyango, 2005;Gotor and Irungu, 2010). Despite interest, negative attitudes toward AIVsconstrain efforts that focus on enhancing their consumption (Matenge et al.,2012). Negative attitudes likely stem from certain plants being consideredweeds (Vorster and Van Rensburg, 2005), poor handling, unhygienic displayat retail outlets (Amaza, 2009), and contradictory information about sourcesof production (Yadav and Sehgal, 2004).

Though some in urban settings have little or no information about leafyAIVs (Anonymous, 2006; Matenge et al., 2012), others avoid purchasingthem because they are perceived to be grown using water from open sewerlines, making them unhealthy for consumption (Anonymous, 2006). Youngconsumers and urban dwellers equate leafy AIVs to traditional lifestyles(Matenge et al., 2012), poverty, and low self-esteem (Faber et al., 2010;Modi et al., 2006). There is an inverse relationship between household wealthand the share of leafy AIVs in total vegetables consumed (Anonymous, 2006;Weinberger and Msuya, 2004). Leafy AIVs are more regularly consumed bypoor households, implying that wealthier people perceive AIVs as foodmeant for their low-income counterparts (Jansen Van Rensberg et al.,2007). However, availability of leafy AIVs in modern markets, in additionto efforts promoting their nutritional importance (Irungu et al., 2008; Ngugiet al., 2007), are factors that might change negative perceptions among high-income earners.

Indigenous knowledge regarding leafy AIVs has been declining and beganwhen exotic vegetable crops were introduced on the African continent(Abukutsa, 2010, 2011; Ayanwale et al., 2016; Frison et al., 2005;Weinberger and Msuya, 2004). Loss of indigenous knowledge can be attrib-uted to effects of modernization and urbanization in changing lifestyles andeating habits (Frison et al., 2005; Matenge et al., 2012). The majority ofyounger consumers are not sufficiently aware of traditional methods ofAIV preparation and cooking (Waudo et al., 2007). Some urban dwellersperceive such techniques as tedious and time consuming (Abukutsa, 2010;Matenge et al., 2012; Ruel et al., 2005). Despite this, some persons are willingto consume leafy AIVs if informed on their preparation and cooking tech-niques (Kimiywe et al., 2007).

Generally, vegetables form part of a healthy diet and enhance daily intakeof dietary fiber (Anonymous, 2003a, 2003b; Van Duyn and Pivonka, 2000).Their acceptance and adequacy in consumption are linked to reduced risk of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

chronic diseases, including stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer, and obesity(Anonymous, 2003a, 2003b; He et al., 2006; Tohill et al., 2004; Van Duyn andPivonka, 2000). In sub-Saharan Africa, per capita consumption of vegetablesis below recommended levels (Ruel et al., 2005). The lowest levels of vege-tables are consumed by the poorest people (Figueroa et al., 2009; Ngugi et al.,2007). This exposes them to risks of mortality and contracting micronutrientrelated diseases (Ezzati et al., 2002). Compared to exotic vegetables, leafyAIVs are superior sources of calcium, phosphorus, iron, zinc, magnesium,sodium, potassium, and vitamins, which are required for normal functioningand development of human body (Habwe et al., 2009; Singh et al., 2012,2013; Uusiku et al., 2010; Weinberger and Msuya, 2004). Each AIV cropcontains different levels of micronutrients, suggesting that diversifying leafyAIVs in consumption has the potential to reduce health conditions associatedwith micronutrient deficiency (Habwe et al., 2009; Kamga et al., 2013; Singhet al., 2012, 2013). Promotional strategies enhancing consumption of leafyAIVs in adequate amounts could contribute to improved nutrition securityand reduce risks of degenerative diseases (Birol et al., 2015; Smith andEyzaguirre, 2007).

Due to increasing consumer awareness of dietary importance of leafyAIVs, their demand is increasing (Amaza, 2009; Irungu et al., 2008; Ngugiet al., 2007), with some consumers indicating a greater willingness to paypremium prices (Chelang’a et al., 2013; Senyolo et al., 2014). There is littleinformation on determinants of AIV acceptance, defined as revealed prefer-ence for leafy AIVs based on current consumer behavior. The study wasundertaken to evaluate socioeconomic, institutional, and product character-istics influencing acceptance of leafy AIVs for consumption by rural andurban dwellers.

Materials and methods

A stratified multistage sampling approach was used in selecting respondents.In the first stage, a purposive sample of Nairobi, Nakuru, Kisii, andKakamega counties in Kenya was obtained. Due to heterogeneity in consu-mer characteristics, Nairobi and Nakuru counties were chosen to representurban households; Kisii and Kakamega counties were chosen to representrural households. Kisii and Kakamega counties are major AIV productionareas in Kenya; Nakuru and Nairobi counties are major final markets whereAIVs from different production zones are sold. In the second stage, onesubcounty from each county identified as major areas where large volumes ofAIVs are produced and/or consumed was chosen.

The third stage involved stratification of market outlets based on informa-tion obtained from subcounty agricultural offices. In urban areas, marketswere stratified into supermarkets, green groceries, and local open air retail

348 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

outlets. In rural areas, farm gate, green groceries, and local open air retailoutlets were identified. In the fourth stage, simple random sampling was usedto select equal number of respondents from each retail outlet. Determinationof the sample size was based on proportionate to size sampling formulae(Groebner and Shannon, 2005). Eventually 450 respondents were distributedproportionate to population size at the county level, resulting in 168 and 282respondents in rural and urban areas, respectively.

Data were obtained through a consumer survey in Jul. 2015 using asemistructured questionnaire. Respondents were interviewed at retail outletsafter purchasing leafy vegetables. Respondents were interviewed to obtaininformation on age, gender, education level, occupation, household size,household income, market distance, access to market and nutritional infor-mation, and perceptions regarding AIV retail prices, taste, quality, andquantity. The coded data were analyzed using Stata 12 (StataCorp, 2011)computer program. The dependent variable acceptance of each of the six AIVcrops for consumption were binary in nature for all leafy AIVs, with oneindicating that a particular AIV crop was accepted for consumption and zerootherwise. A binary selection model would appropriately fit the analysis dueto the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable (Deb and Trivedi, 1997;Greene, 2002). The six vegetable crops identified as major leafy AIVs con-sumed were Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), Amaranth (Amaranthuscruentus L.), Spider plant (Cleome gynandra L.), African night shade(Solanum scabrum Mill.), Jute mallow (Corchorus olitorius L.), and Slenderleaf (Crotalaria brevidens Benth; Abukutsa et al., 2006).

Because estimation involved several AIVs, selection of one or more cropswas more likely due to variation in consumer taste and preferences, whichare determined by product attributes. Selection of a single crop may affect thelikelihood of selecting other alternatives due to substitutability or comple-mentarily relationships existing between different leafy AIVs. Estimatingindependent binary equations for each crop would lead to potential biasbecause the analysis does not allow correlation of error terms, leading toinefficient estimates. To account for these shortcomings, selection decisionswere modeled using a multivariate probit (MVP) model. The MVP modelsimultaneously regresses a combination of several correlated binary equa-tions against a single vector of explanatory variables (Cappellari and Jenkins,2003; Kassie et al., 2013; Teklewold et al., 2013).

The MVP model denoted a system of six binary equations jointly esti-mated with a maximum likelihood method to determine acceptance for eachleafy AIV crop. Separate equations are estimated differently for rural andurban dwellers to account for potential heterogeneity in socioeconomic andinstitutional characteristics between the two groups. Socioeconomic, institu-tional, and product characteristics used in analyzing determinants of leafyAIV acceptance among rural and urban dwellers were derived from previous

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

studies (Amaza, 2009; Ayanwale et al., 2016; Birol at al., 2015; Chelang’aet al., 2013; Dovie et al., 2007; Faber et al., 2010; Frazao et al., 2007; Smithand Eyzaguirre, 2007; Vorster et al., 2007; Yadav and Sehgal, 2004).Household cook was defined as the person responsible for preparing house-hold meals and decision maker as a household member responsible formaking key decisions on matters concerning food consumption. To deter-mine appropriateness of the MVP model for analysis and the relationshipbetween leafy AIVs in consumption, error terms between binary correlationcoefficients of the six AIV acceptance equations for rural and urban dwellerswere estimated.

Results and discussion

Summary statistics between rural and urban dwellers differed (Table 1).Urban decision makers were younger with higher level of education. Theyhad fewer household members and allocated smaller proportions of theirincome to food purchase. Urban households were located closer to marketoutlets and perceived market prices on leafy AIVs were less affordable. Theyperceived AIV taste as unfavorable and the quantity of leafy AIVs sold perbunch was smaller than for exotic leafy vegetables.

Descriptive statistics on acceptance level of leafy AIVs varied among ruraland urban dwellers (Table 2). Apart from jute mallow and slender leaf, allother leafy AIV crops had at least a 50% level of acceptance for rural andurban dwellers. Jute mallow and slender leaf are complements (Were, 1989)and less accepted probably because jute mallow has a slippery texture (Jacoband Ashkenazi, 2014) and slender leaf having a bitter taste (Abukutsa, 2007).African night shade had the highest acceptance, followed by cowpea; slenderleaf was the least accepted by rural and urban dwellers. Though acceptance ofleafy AIVs was equally high among rural and urban dwellers, all crops weremore accepted by rural dwellers except for jute mallow. This confirms thatleafy AIVs are important sources of nutrition in rural areas (Abukutsa, 2010;Abukutsa et al., 2006; Ngugi et al., 2007). Additionally, vegetable prices arelikely cheaper in rural areas, and local knowledge associated with utilizationof leafy AIVs is higher for rural dwellers (Ogundari and Arifalo, 2013; Smithand Eyzaguirre, 2007). The relatively high acceptance level of leafy AIVs byurban dwellers could be attributed to increasing awareness of medicinal andnutritional benefits associated with AIV consumption in urban areas (Irunguet al., 2008).

Error terms between binary correlation coefficients of the six AIV accep-tance equations for rural and urban dwellers varied (Tables 3 and 4). All 15pair cases for rural and urban consummers were positive. Estimated correla-tion coefficients between pairs of leafy AIVs were different from zero,indicating the existence of strong interdependence in consumption of leafy

350 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Table1.

Definition

ofvariables

anddescrip

tivestatistics.

Variable

Rurald

wellers

Urban

dwellers

Sign

ificance

Continuo

usvariables

Definition

ofvariables

andtheirmeasurements

Mean

tValuea

Age

Ageof

thedecision

maker

bin

years

43.22

40.62

2.03**

Educ

Yearsof

scho

olingof

thedecision

maker

9.45

10.37

−1.88*

H_size

Num

berof

mem

bersin

theho

usehold

5.56

4.38

5.65***

Mrkt_dist

Distanceto

thenearestmarketou

tlet(in

minutes)

35.39

18.00

7.41***

P_income

Proportionof

incomeallocatedto

food

items(in

Kenyan

shillings)

0.45

0.35

2.29**

Catego

ricalvariables

Percentage

χ2ratio

c

Gender

%of

maledecision

makers

34.32

30.08

0.72

Occup

%of

respon

dentswith

householdcook

dform

allyem

ployed

19.26

21.77

0.43

Mrkt_info

%of

respon

dentswith

access

tomarketinform

ationabou

tleafyAIVs

89.31

88.65

0.03

Nutr_info

%of

respon

dentswith

access

tonu

trition

alinform

ationabou

tleafyAIVs

45.49

43.94

0.36

Price_per

%of

respon

dentswho

perceive

prices

ofleafyAIVs

areaffordable

74.63

85.22

5.37***

Bunch_

qty

%of

respon

dentswho

perceive

bunchesof

leafyAIVs

asbigin

size

80.41

53.89

31.90***

V_qu

ality

%of

respon

dentswho

perceive

thequ

ality

ofleafyAIVs

asfairlygo

od95.76

97.45

0.99

AIV_

taste

%of

respon

dentswho

perceive

tasteof

leafyAIVs

asfavorable

75.68

48.34

17.61***

a tTest

was

used

todeterm

inesign

ificant

diffe

rences

incontinuo

usvariables

betweenruraland

urbandw

ellers.

bDecisionmaker

isamem

berof

theho

useholdrespon

sibleformakingkeydecision

son

mattersconcerning

food

consum

ption.

c χ2Ratio

was

used

todeterm

inerelatio

nships

amon

gcatego

rical

variables

betweenruraland

urbandw

ellers.

dHou

seho

ldcook

istheperson

respon

sibleforpreparingho

useholdmeals.

***,**,and

*Significantat

1%,5

%,and

10%,respectively.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

AIV crops. These findings support the appropriateness of the MVP model inthis study.

The MVP model for determinants of AIV acceptance for rural and urbandwellers varied (Tables 5 and 6). The Wald test for rural dwellers and forurban dwellers indicated the data were fit for MVP model analysis. Thelikelihood ratio test for rural and urban dwellers of independence of multipleconsumption of different AIVs (independence of the disturbance terms) wasrejected. This indicates that consumption of different AIVs was not mutuallyindependent. Some explanatory variables influenced acceptance of leafy AIVsfor consumption by rural and urban dwellers (Tables 5 and 6).

Male decision makers had a significant and negative effect on jute mallowacceptance among urban dwellers. Attaching suitable complements of leafyAIVs requires knowledge to estimate appropriate quantities of each crop onthe resulting recipe as well as techniques of preparation and cooking. Menare less likely to have adequate knowledge on these matters, because womenare believed to possess more cultural knowledge regarding AIV collection(Amaza, 2009; Weinberger et al., 2011). Baker and Wardle (2003) reportedthat more women than men consume higher levels of vegetables because they

Table 3. Binary correlation coefficients for MVP regression equations for rural dwellers.Cowpea Amaranth Spider plant African night shade Jute mallow

Amaranth 0.482**Spider plant 0.371** 0.620**African night shade 0.363** 0.533** 0.515**Jute mallow 0.266** 0.326** 0.359** 0.204*Slender leaf 0.221* 0.271** 0.258** 0.190** 0.561**

*, **Significant at 5% and 1%, respectively.

Table 4. Binary correlation coefficients for MVP regression equations in urban dwellers.Cowpea Amaranth Spider plant African night shade Jute mallow

Amaranth 0.375**Spider plant 0.287** 0.445**African night shade 0.404** 0.443** 0.468**Jute mallow 0.191** 0.341** 0.248** 0.281**Slender leaf 0.162* 0.193** 0.218** 0.258** 0.611**

*, **Significant at 5% and 1%, respectively.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on acceptance level of leafy AIVs (in percentages).AIV crop Rural dwellers Urban dwellers χ2 Ratioa

Cowpea 78.8 69.3 3.57*Amaranth 75.4 65.8 3.32*Spider plant 76.8 75.4 0.08African night shade 84.2 77.2 2.42Jute mallow 41.4 45.6 0.53Slender leaf 38.4 36.0 0.19

aχ2 Ratio was used to test for relationship in leafy AIV acceptance between rural and urban dwellers.*Significant at 10%.

352 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Table5.

MVP

results

onfactorsinfluencing

acceptance

ofleafyAIVs

inrurald

wellers.

Cowpea

Amaranth

Spider

plant

African

nigh

tshade

Jute

mallow

Slenderleaf

Variable

Coefficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SE

Gender

−0.128

0.278

0.173

0.268

0.086

0.273

−0.212

0.278

−0.127

0.253

−0.130

0.248

Age

0.012

0.013

0.024*

0.012

0.033**

0.014

0.022

0.014

0.011

0.012

0.024*

0.012

Educ

0.024

0.032

0.052

0.033

0.074**

0.037

0.064*

0.035

0.003

0.033

0.055*

0.033

H_size

−0.092

0.057

−0.086

0.055

−0.021

0.059

−0.056

0.059

−0.033

0.056

−0.044

0.058

Occup

−0.558

0.346

−0.738**

0.353

−0.926**

0.371

−0.616

0.378

0.297

0.331

0.165

0.338

P_income

−0.002

0.132

−0.133

0.124

−0.359**

0.149

−0.099

0.138

−0.152

0.125

−0.240*

0.131

Mrkt_dist

0.151

0.125

0.071

0.124

0.206

0.144

0.140

0.141

0.275**

0.132

0.404**

0.142

Mrkt_Info

−0.186

0.408

−0.418

0.422

0.107

0.429

−0.290

0.512

0.034

0.359

0.352

0.359

Nutr_info

−0.048

0.654

−1.448

0.834

−0.696

0.819

−3.875

75.256

−0.777

0.656

−0.493

0.656

Price_per

0.038

0.314

0.468

0.327

0.101

0.355

−0.022

0.357

0.101

0.299

0.284

0.309

Bunch_

qty

0.122

0.221

−0.110

0.216

−0.236

0.228

0.033

0.231

0.242

0.199

0.176

0.203

V_qu

ality

−0.065

0.097

−0.167

0.096

−0.319

0.103

−0.070

0.100

−0.204

0.092

−0.364

0.097

AIV_

taste

0.169

0.093

0.234

0.093

0.326

0.101

0.064

0.096

0.199

0.089

0.293

0.094

Constant

0.135

1.008

0.501

1.104

−1.617

1.102

3.327

75.260

−0.803

0.983

−3.226***

1.031

***,**,and

*Significantat

1%,5

%,and

10%,respectively.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Table6.

MVP

results

onfactorsinfluencing

acceptance

ofleafyAIVs

inurbandw

ellers.

Cowpea

Amaranth

Spider

plant

African

nigh

tshade

Jute

mallow

Slenderleaf

Variable

Coefficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SECo

efficient

SE

Gender

−0.084

0.233

−0.166

0.222

0.103

0.222

−0.015

0.227

−0.356*

0.196

−0.318

0.204

Age

0.003

0.010

0.006

0.010

−0.013

0.010

−0.014

0.010

−0.009

0.009

−0.020

0.009

Educ

−0.024

0.030

−0.010

0.028

0.017

0.028

−0.050*

0.029

−0.016

0.025

−0.033

0.025

H_size

0.039

0.064

−0.039

0.059

0.035

0.059

0.052

0.060

0.067

0.054

−0.198***

0.058

Occup

0.663

0.314

0.304

0.288

0.213

0.297

0.454

0.303

0.333

0.244

0.347

0.252

P_income

−0.109

0.150

−0.183

0.146

−0.369**

0.149

0.027

0.147

−0.222

0.132

−0.486***

0.147

Mrkt_dist

0.178

0.147

0.354**

0.147

0.455***

0.155

−0.136

0.147

0.174

0.131

0.314**

0.135

Mrkt_Info

−0.766

0.478

−0.483

0.363

−0.688*

0.390

−0.160

0.380

0.038

0.285

−0.353

0.290

Nutr_info

0.385

0.526

0.019

0.518

0.014

0.490

0.178

0.498

−0.172

0.495

0.086

0.520

Price_per

0.050

0.294

0.541**

0.270

0.188

0.288

0.094

0.280

0.367

0.257

0.134

0.263

Bunch_

qty

0.362

0.172

0.256

0.168

0.048

0.178

0.225

0.181

−0.084

0.161

0.209

0.167

V_qu

ality

−0.122

0.171

−0.050

0.168

0.085

0.175

−0.121

0.177

−0.298

0.159

−0.201

0.161

AIV_

taste

−0.022

0.040

−0.068

0.040

0.016

0.041

0.003

0.041

0.016

0.038

0.079

0.040

Constant

0.338

1.098

−0.479

1.026

−0.346

1.041

2.058*

1.088

−0.891

0.917

−1.444

0.936

***,**,and

*Significantat

1%,5

%,and

10%,respectively.

354 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

are more informed about healthier diets. Urban male decision makers avoidjute mallow perhaps due to inadequate traditional knowledge about leafyAIVs and as a strategy to lessen the time it would take to prepare itscomplementary leafy AIVs.

Rural elderly decision makers were more likely to accept amaranth, spiderplant, and slender leaf for consumption. Elderly people are likely to consumemore indigenous vegetable due to their long experience in AIV preparation,cooking, consumption, and other utilization (Ayanwale et al., 2016; Matengeet al., 2012). Their acceptance of leafy AIVs could be explained by reasonsbeyond taste, affordability, and availability in the market. Nutritional andhealth benefits attached to AIVs (Matenge et al., 2012; Smith and Eyzaguirre,2007; Yang and Keding, 2009) may be important in understanding thepreference for AIVs among elderly people. Ayanwale et al. (2016) reportedthat a majority of AIV consumers were relatively young, indicating that otherfactors may affect preferences.

Education significantly and positively influenced spider plant, Africannight shade, and slender leaf acceptance by rural consumers. Higher educa-tion levels for urban dwellers reduced acceptance of African night shade.More educated people have a higher likelihood of acquiring supplementaryknowledge on dietary issues, which enhances their capacity to choose nutri-tious and healthy food (Sanlier and Karakus, 2010). Local knowledge of AIVsis likely higher in rural than urban areas and the major source of thisinformation is from elderly family members, who are mainly found in ruralareas.

Household size significantly and negatively influenced slender leaf accep-tance by urban dwellers. Larger households purchase vegetables that wouldbetter meet household preference (Ayanwale et al., 2016). Because slenderleaf has a bitter taste (Abukutsa, 2007), only a few of household members arelikely to accept it for consumption. A higher variation in taste and prefer-ences is more likely found in a large household size, implying that differenthousehold members could prefer different leafy AIVs. Heterogeneity in AIVtaste and preference implies that different recipes would be prepared fordifferent people and this process would be tedious and time consuming. It ispreferable to prepare recipes from a leafy AIV crop acceptable to allmembers.

Amaranth and spider plant were less accepted by rural consumerswhere the household cook was employed outside the home. These deci-sion makers are likely more occupied at work and have less time toperform food preparation. There is a perception that more time isrequired for AIV preparation and cooking (Matenge et al., 2012; Ruelet al., 2005).

Spider plant and slender leaf were less likely to be accepted among ruraland urban dwellers with increased income for use on food items. This

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

implies that increased income does not favor consumption of vegetables(Frazao et al., 2007; Van der Lans et al., 2012), which are regarded as luxuriesamong people with low income (Ogundari and Arifalo, 2013). Perhaps theincreased income is used to acquire daily energy requirements throughconsumption of fats and carbohydrates, especially among poor households(Anonymous, 2012; Van der Lans et al., 2012). These findings confirm theopinion among high-income earners and urban dwellers who associate AIVswith poor rural people (Faber et al., 2010; Modi et al., 2006). Similar resultswere obtained by Blisard et al. (2004) and Frazao et al. (2007), where low-income consumers were less likely to spend much of their extra income onvegetable consumption. Moreover, higher income earners did not consumeenough vegetables, implying that in addition to income, other factors play arole in vegetable purchasing behavior (Frazao et al., 2007).

Distance to market determines consumer ease of accessing food. Thisvariable significantly and positively influenced jute mallow and slender leafacceptance by rural dwellers. Distance to the market positively influencedacceptance of amaranth, spider plant, and slender leaf by urban dwellers.Discussions with respondents indicated that jute mallow complements slen-der leaf and amaranth complements spider plant. Consumers apparentlywould not mind making an extra effort to obtain vegetable complementsfrom distant markets. Distant retail outlets in urban areas are likely to bemarkets where high-quality leafy AIVs are sold (Ngugi et al., 2007). Longerdistance to markets constrains access to food commodities due to hightransportation costs (Vorster et al., 2007). This aspect needs further study.

Access to market information significantly and negatively affected spiderplant acceptance by urban consumers. Normally, market informationenhances market exchange functions by revealing pricing, trading quantities,and quality and type of crops and varieties available in the market.Insufficient information regarding sources of AIV production constrainacceptance for consumption (Yadav and Sehgal, 2004). Though some con-sumers believe that AIVs are grown using sewer water in peri-urban andurban areas, others perceive that low standards of hygiene occur whenhandling them at retail outlets (Amaza, 2009; Anonymous, 2006). It is notclear why urban dwellers formed negative attitudes toward spider plant.

Urban consumers who perceived that retail price offered on amaranth wasaffordable were more likely to accept it for consumption. Price perceptionhas many roles in the price–quality association, prestige sensitivity, priceconsciousness, and value consciousness, and these may change overtimebased on how they influence consumer purchasing behavior (Fatih, 2014;Sternquist et al., 2004). Like other agricultural products, market prices forAIVs fluctuate across seasons in production, making them less affordableamong poor households, especially during dry spells (Amaza, 2009).Consumers who are adequately informed about the importance of leafy

356 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

AIVs in a diet have a higher willingness to pay premium prices in purchasingthese vegetables (Chelang’a et al., 2013; Senyolo et al., 2014). Generally, pricesfor agricultural commodities are expected to be higher in urban marketscompared to rural markets due to poor distribution of market information,addition of marketing margins by intermediaries, associated transportationcosts, and other transaction charges (Hassan et al., 2012; Orewa and Egware,2012). Contrary to this argument, Hassan et al. (2012) found that vegetableprices were higher in rural markets despite being produced in rural and peri-urban areas. Further investigation of this is required.

High-income households in rural and urban areas seem to be a marketniche that is inadequately informed about the dietary importance of leafyAIVs. Urban male and younger rural household decision makers are likelyinadequately aware of indigenous knowledge of AIV preparation and cook-ing techniques. Generally, all leafy AIV crops were more accepted by ruralthan urban consumers except for jute mallow. Strategies to enhance valueaddition and sensitization of consumers to traditional knowledge regardingleafy AIVs as well as their nutritional importance to the human diet arerequired.

Acknowledgment

We recognize the cooperation received from respondents during consumer surveys.

Funding

The authors are grateful for research grants from the Horticultural Innovations and Learningfor Improved Nutrition and Livelihood in East Africa project funded by the Federal Ministryof Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment of Germany. The study was undertaken through a collaboration betweenHumboldt University of Berlin, Germany, and Egerton University, Kenya. Views expressedherein are solely those of the authors and not of the affiliated institutions.

ORCID

George Owuor http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3123-1376

References

Abukutsa, O.M.O. 2007. The diversity of cultivated African leafy vegetables in three com-munities in western Kenya. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition andDevelopment 7(3):1–15.

Abukutsa, O.M.O. 2010. African indigenous vegetables in Kenya: strategic repositioning inthe horticultural sector. Inaugural Lecture, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnology, Nairobi, Kenya, 30 Apr. 2010.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Abukutsa, O.M.O. 2011. Researching African indigenous fruits and vegetables—why? Dept.of Horticulture, Jomo Kenyatta Univ. of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya.(http://knowledge.cta.int/Dossiers/Commodities/Fruits/Feature-articles/Researching-African-Indigenous-Fruits-and-Vegetables-Why).

Abukutsa, O.M.O. and J.C. Onyango. 2005. Conservation and seed production of Africanleafy vegetables at Maseno University botanic garden, Kenya. Proceedings African CropScience Conference 7:1201–1204.

Abukutsa, O.M.O., K. Tushaboomwe, J.C. Onyango, and S.E. Macha. 2006. Improved com-munity land-use for sustainable production and utilization of African indigenous vegeta-bles in the Lake Victoria region. Proc. of the Fifth Workshop on Sustainable HorticulturalProduction in the Tropics, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya, 23–26 Nov. 2005.

Amaza, S.P. 2009. An analysis of traditional African vegetables and sweet potato consumerdemand in Kenya and Tanzania. Project report for Farm Concern, The World VegetableCentre, International Potato Centre and Urban Harvest, Arusha, Tanzania.

Anonymous. 2003a. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a JointWHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 916. World HealthOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Anonymous. 2003b. Fruit and vegetable promotion initiative—report of the meeting, 25–27/08/03. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Anonymous. 2006. Empowering small scale and women farmers through sustainable produc-tion, seed supply and marketing of African indigenous vegetables in Eastern Africa. Finalreport. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.

Anonymous. 2012. Africa human development report 2012: towards a food secure future.United Nations Development Programme, New York.

Ayanwale, A.B., C.A. Amusan, V.A. Adeyemo, and D.J. Oyedele. 2016. Analysis of householddemand for underutilized indigenous vegetables. International Journal of Vegetable Science22(6):570–577.

Baker, A.H. and J. Wardle. 2003. Sex differences in fruit and vegetable intake in older adults.Appetite 40:269–275.

Birol, E., J.V. Meenakshi, A. Oparinde, S. Perez, and K. Tomlins. 2015. Developing countryconsumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis. Food Security 7:555–568.

Blisard, N., H. Stewart, and D. Jolliffe. 2004. Low-income households’ expenditures on fruitsand vegetables. Agriculture Economic Report No. 833. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.

Cappellari, L. and S.P. Jenkins. 2003. Multivariate probit regression using simulated max-imum likelihood. Stata Journal 3:278–294.

Chelang’a, P.K., G.A. Obare, and S.C. Kimenju. 2013. Analysis of urban consumers’ will-ingness to pay a premium for African leafy vegetables (ALVs) in Kenya: a case of Eldorettown. Food Security 5:591–595.

Croft, M.M., M.I. Marshall, and S.C. Weller. 2014. Consumers’ preference for quality in threeAfrican indigenous vegetables in Western Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Economics andDevelopment 3(5):67–77.

Deb, P. and P.K. Trivedi. 1997. Demand for medical care by the elderly: a finite mixtureapproach. Journal of Applied Econometrics 12(3):313–336.

Dovie, D.B.K., C.M. Shackleton, and E.T.F. Witkowski. 2007. Conceptualizing the human useof wild edible herbs for conservation in South African communal lands. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 84:146–156.

Ezzati, M., A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, S. Van der Hoorn, and C.J.L. Murray. 2002. Selectedmajor risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 360:1347–1360.

358 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Faber, M., A. Oelofse, P.J. van Jaarsveld, F.A.M. Wenhold, and W.J. van Rensburg. 2010.African leafy vegetables consumed by households in the Limpopo and KwaZulu–Natalprovinces in South Africa. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 23(1):30–38.

Fatih, G. 2014. Examining price perception and the relationships among its dimensions viastructural equation modeling: a research on Turkish consumers. British Journal ofMarketing Studies 2(1):1–11.

Figueroa, B.M., P. Tittonell, K.E. Giller, and O. Ohiokpehai. 2009. The contribution oftraditional vegetables to household food security in two communities of Vihiga andMigori districts, Kenya. Acta Horticulturae 806(1):57–64.

Frazao, E., M. Andrews, D. Smallwood, and M. Prell. 2007. Food spending patterns of low-income households: will increasing purchasing power results in healthier food choices?Economic Information Bul., No. 29-4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService, Washington, D.C.

Frison, E., I.F. Smith, T. Johns, J. Cherfas, and P. Eyzaguirre. 2005. Using biodiversity forfood, dietary diversity, better nutrition and health. South African Journal of ClinicalNutrition 18:112–114.

Gotor, E. and C. Irungu. 2010. The impact of bioversity international’s African leafy vege-tables programme in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28(1):41–55.

Greene, W.H. 2002. Econometric analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, N.J.Groebner, D.F. and P.W. Shannon. 2005. Business statistics. A decision making approach.

Pentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Habwe, F.O., M.K. Walingo, O.M.O. Abukutsa, and M.O. Oluoch. 2009. Iron content of the

formulated East African indigenous vegetable recipes. African Journal of Food Science 3(12):393–397.

Hassan, S., A. Hussain, M.A. Khan, and I. Mahmood. 2012. Rural–urban retail prices andmarketing margins of fresh fruits and vegetables in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal ofAgricultural Research 25(3):206–217.

He, F.J., C.A. Nowson, and G.A. Macgregor. 2006. Fruit and vegetable consumption andstroke: meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet 367:320–326.

Irungu, C., J. Mburu, P. Maundu, M. Grum, and Z.I. Hoeschle. 2008. The effect of marketdevelopment on-farm conservation of diversity of African leafy vegetables around Nairobi.12th European Association of Agricultural Economists Congress, People, Food andEnvironments: Global Trends and European Strategies, Ghent, Belgium, 26–29 Aug. 2008.

Jacob, J. and M. Ashkenazi. 2014. The world cookbook: the greatest recipes from around theglobe. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, Calif.

Jansen Van Rensberg, W.S., W. Van Averbeke, R. Slabbert, M. Faber, P. Van Jaarsveld, I. VanHeeden, F. Wenhold, and A. Oelofse. 2007. African leafy vegetables in South Africa. WaterSouth Africa 33:317–326.

Kamga, R.T., C. Kouame, A.R. Atangana, T. Chagomoka, and R. Ndango. 2013. Nutritionalevaluation of five African indigenous vegetables. Journal of Horticultural Research 21(1):99–106.

Kassie, M., M. Jaleta, B. Shiferaw, B. Mmbando, and M. Mekuria. 2013. Adoption ofinterrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from ruralTanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80:525–540.

Kimiywe, J., J. Waudo, D. Mbithe, and P. Maundu. 2007. Utilization and medicinal value ofindigenous leafy vegetables consumed in urban and peri-urban Nairobi. African Journal ofFood, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 7(4):1–15.

Matenge, S.T.P., D. van der Merwe, D. De Beer, M.J.C. Bosman, and A. Kruger. 2012.Consumers’ beliefs on indigenous and traditional foods and acceptance of productsmade with cowpea leaves. African Journal of Agricultural Research 7(14):2243–2254.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Maundu, P., E. Achigan-Dako, and Y. Morimoto. 2009. Biodiversity of African vegetables, p.63–104. In: C.M. Shackleton, M.W. Pasquini, and A.W. Drescher (eds.). African indigen-ous vegetables in urban agriculture. Earthscan, London.

Modi, M., A.T. Modi, and S. Hendriks. 2006. Potential role for wild vegetables in householdfood security: a preliminary case study in Kwazulu–Natal, South Africa. African Journal ofFood, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 6:1–13.

Ngugi, I.K., R. Gitau, and J. Nyoro. 2007. Access to high value markets by smallholderfarmers of African indigenous vegetables in Kenya, re-governing markets innovativepractice series. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Ogundari, K. and S.F. Arifalo. 2013. Determinants of household demand for fresh fruit andvegetables in Nigeria: a double hurdle approach. Quarterly Journal of InternationalAgriculture 52(3):199–216.

Orewa, S.I. and R.A. Egware. 2012. Comparative analysis of rural and urban market prices forgarri in Edo State, Nigeria: implications for food security. Journal of Development andAgricultural Economics 4(9):252–257.

Ruel, M.T., N. Minot, and L. Smith. 2005. Patterns and determinants of fruit and vegetableconsumption in sub-Saharan Africa: a multicounty comparison. Food and AgricultureOrganization/World Health Organization Workshop on Fruit and Vegetables for Health,Kobe, Japan, 1–3 Sept. 2004.

Sanlier, N. and S.S. Karakus. 2010. Evaluation of food purchasing behaviour of consumersfrom supermarkets. British Food Journal 112(2):140–150.

Schippers, R.R. 2002. African indigenous vegetables: an overview of the cultivated species(revised edition). Natural Resources International limited, Chatham, U.K.

Senyolo, M.G., E. Wale, and F.G. Ortmann. 2014. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for under-utilized vegetable crops: the case of African leafy vegetables in South Africa. Journal ofHuman Ecology 47(3):219–227.

Singh, S., D.R. Singh, K.M. Salim, A. Srivastava, L.B. Singh, and R.C. Srivastava. 2012.Estimation of proximate composition, micronutrients and phytochemical compounds intraditional vegetables from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. International Journal of FoodScience and Nutrition 62(7):765–673.

Singh, S., D.R. Singh, L.B. Singh, S. Chand, and R.S. Dam. 2013. Indigenous vegetables forfood and nutritional security in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. InternationalJournal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology 4(5):503–512.

Smith, I.F. and P. Eyzaguirre. 2007. African leafy vegetables: their role in World HealthOrganization’s, global fruit and vegetable initiative. African Journal of Food, Agriculture,Nutrition and Development 7(3):1–17.

StataCorp. 2011. Stata statistical software: release 12. StataCorp, College Station, Tex.Sternquist, B., E.B. Sang, and J. Byoungho. 2004. The dimensionality of price perceptions: a

cross-cultural comparison of Asian consumers. International Review of Retail, Distributionand Consumer Research 14(1):83–100.

Teklewold, H., M. Kassie, and B. Shiferaw. 2013. Adoption of multiple sustainable agriculturalpractices in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(3):597–623.

Tohill, B.C., J. Seymour, M. Serdula, L. Kettel-Khan, and B.J. Rolls. 2004. What epidemiolo-gical studies tell us about the relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption andbody weight. Nutrition Reviews 62:365–374.

Uusiku, P.N., A. Oelofse, K.G. Duodu, M.J. Bester, and M. Faber. 2010. Nutritional value ofleafy vegetables of sub-Saharan Africa and their potential contribution to human health: areview. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23(6):499–509.

Vainio-Mattila, K. 2000. Wild vegetables used by the Sambaa in the Usambara Mountains,NE Tanzania. Annales Botanici Fennici 37:57–67.

360 E. O. GIDO ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17

Van der Lans, C., H. Snoek, F. de Boer, and A. Elings. 2012. Vegetable chains in Kenya;production and consumption of vegetables in the Nairobi metropolis. Wageningen URCentre for Development Innovation Rapport GTB-1130, Wageningen, The Netherlands.(http://edepot.wur.nl/216710).

Van Duyn, M.A. and E. Pivonka. 2000. Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetableconsumption for the dietetics professional. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 99(10):1241–1248.

Vorster, I.H.J. and W.J. Van Rensburg. 2005. Traditional vegetables as a source of food inSouth Africa: some experiences. Proceedings African Crop Science Conference 7:669–671.

Vorster, I.H.J., W.J. van Rensburg, J. Van Zijl, and S.L. Venter. 2007. The importance oftraditional leafy vegetables in South Africa. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutritionand Development 7(4):1–13.

Waudo, J., J. Kimeywe, D. Mbithe, and P. Maundu. 2007. Utilization and medical value ofindigenous leafy vegetables consumed in urban and peri-urban Nairobi. African Journal ofFood, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 7(4):27–32.

Weinberger, K. and J. Msuya. 2004. Indigenous vegetables in Tanzania—significance andprospects. Asian Veg. Res. and Dev. Center, Technical Bul. No. 31, Publication 04-600,Shanhua, Taiwan.

Weinberger, K., M. Pasquini, P. Kasambula, and O.M.O. Abukutsa. 2011. Supply chains forindigenous vegetables in urban and peri-urban areas of Uganda and Kenya: a genderedperspective, p. 169–181. In: D. Mithoefer and H. Waibel (eds.). Vegetable production andmarketing: socio-economic research. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Were, G.S. 1989. Food resources for the Luhya. Kenya social–cultural profiles: Busia District.Institute of African Studies University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Yadav, S.K. and S. Sehgal. 2004. Effect of domestic processing and cooking on selected anti-nutrientcontents of some green leafy vegetables. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 58:1–11.

Yang, R.Y. and G.B. Keding. 2009. Nutritional contributions of important African indigenousvegetables, p. 105–143. In: C.M. Shackleton, M.W. Pasquini, and A.W. Drescher (eds.).African indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture. Earthscan, London.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE 361

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mr

Eri

c G

ido]

at 0

5:01

14

Sept

embe

r 20

17